Previous Document

                                                                       [PP96]
Aspin and Others


An overhead projector was used to show a series of slides explaining 'trade
terms, international finance instruments and basic insurance concepts' -
'concept' graphics. Hill (1991) comments:

   Once we had gone through the lecture, with the use of the slides ...
   we never had to [do] any of it again. Equally, although we had to
   prove the details of the money movements by evidence, the slides
   showed what actually happened and were used by all as reference points
   in discussing the evidence.
   
   Both prosecution and defence agreed, as did the judge, that the use of
   these aids had saved many days of court time, both because they fixed
   the new knowledge in the jurors' minds and because they persuaded some
   of the defendants not to challenge detail which they had originally
   intended to challenge.
   
Hill considers that 'it is crucial that the technology is and be seen to be
the servant of counsel, "hands on" managed by him', as it was in this case.


Brinks Mat


In this case a series of computer-generated graphics were used, each showing
one alleged money-laundering event - 'case' graphics. The graphics were
displayed to the jury and the other participants on a series of centrally
controlled computer monitors (VDUs), with one for each two jurors. A camera
was also available to provide video display of documents which had not been
provided to the jury. Each juror was provided with a paper copy ('hard copy')
of each graphic, with copies of the documentary exhibits regarded by the
prosecution as necessary to prove that event. As the trial progressed it
became necessary for the jury to refer to other documents, and Hill (1991)
notes that the jurors needed to be provided with hard copies, as the video
camera was not sufficient. Document imaging was not used in this case. Hill is
critical of the choice by counsel in this case that '(n)either the computer
driving the graphics, nor the camera, nor the switching controls, were managed
by counsel', but concedes that there 'is no doubting that it worked'.


Grob and Postgate


Here, Hill used back projection of computer-created and stored graphics onto a
large projection screen as the primary means of presentation. A minimal number
of repeater VDUs were also distributed through the court, including one for
the use of the witness (who could also point to the projected image). Hill has
strong views on the choice between monitors and projection:

   Many of us are very concerned that the use of individual VDUs produces
   an oppressive atmosphere in court and virtually makes the jurors
   prisoners of the technology, even in those courts where it is possible
   to inset the VDUs in the working surfaces. The technology is ever
   there, on top of them, uncontrollable by them and demanding of them an
   almost pavlovian response.
   
However, he admits there are common problems in relying on projection:

   The technology of the screen which we did use was unable to maintain
   high definition at the margins, nor did it really cope satisfactorily
   with the documents which were imaged via the camera.
   
Despite this, he considered that the presentation technology worked well,
and was used in the opening and in examination and cross-examination.
It was also used by the defence. 'Opening

                                                            Next Document